Instant Gov't Scanner: Know Everything About You From 50m Away

  • Thread starter Thread starter 83729780
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Government
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a recently reported article about a proposed government laser technology that claims to gather extensive personal information from individuals at a distance of 50 meters. Participants explore the implications, technical feasibility, and societal impact of this technology, with a focus on its potential applications in security and privacy concerns.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses skepticism about the article's claims, suggesting that the technology is not new and may face significant data analysis challenges.
  • Concerns are raised about the practical limitations of detecting specific substances on individuals without direct contact.
  • Another participant appreciates the technology, comparing it to quantum cascade lasers used for chemical detection.
  • There is uncertainty regarding the specific wavelength range of the laser and its operational capabilities.
  • Some participants question the necessity and motivations behind gathering such detailed information about individuals.
  • A participant reflects on the emotional aspect of personal connections, using a metaphor about dogs to highlight the natural ability to sense information.
  • Debate arises over the effectiveness of "embracing and exploiting" technology versus opposing its use, with calls for clearer definitions of what "works far better" means.
  • Participants challenge each other's views on oppression and the implications of technology on personal freedom.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on the technology's implications or effectiveness. Some support the technology's potential, while others are critical and skeptical of its claims and motivations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the article's claims, including the lack of specific details about the technology's wavelength and operational parameters. There is also a noted dependence on assumptions regarding the technology's capabilities and the motivations behind its development.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals concerned with privacy, security technology, and the ethical implications of surveillance methods.

83729780
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
I am seeking informed feedback regarding this article, which is being widely reported on by the media:

http://gizmodo.com/5923980/the-secret-government-laser-that-instantly-knows-everything-about-you

Hidden Government Scanners Will Instantly Know Everything About You From 164 Feet Away
Gizmodo


Within the next year or two, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will instantly know everything about your body, clothes, and luggage with a new laser-based molecular scanner fired from 164 feet (50 meters) away. From traces of drugs or gun powder on your clothes to what you had for breakfast to the adrenaline level in your body—agents will be able to get any information they want without even touching you.

And without you knowing it.
The technology is so incredibly effective that, in November 2011, its inventors were subcontracted by In-Q-Tel to work with the US Department of Homeland Security. In-Q-Tel is a company founded "in February 1999 by a group of private citizens at the request of the Director of the CIA and with the support of the U.S. Congress." According to In-Q-Tel, they are the bridge between the Agency and new technology companies.

Their plan is to install this molecular-level scanning in airports and border crossings all across the United States. The official, stated goal of this arrangement is to be able to quickly identify explosives, dangerous chemicals, or bioweapons at a distance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Computer science news on Phys.org


Honestly I find the article leans pretty far to the side of overreaction. All this really appears to be is a tunable picosecond laser (not really new AFAIK) which can emit in the terahertz wavelength (or perhaps excite in a different wavelength and receive terahertz?) for the purpose of ultra-sensitive Raman spectroscopy.

What they don't tell you in the article is that while yes it's theoretically very sensitive, data analysis is going to be a big problem. Additionally, for a remote-sensing spectrometer such as they're proposing, you would need to be able to excite the target (more importantly the specific substance on the target) and receive a signal from it; in other words detecting something on the bottom of your shoe is out of the question. The only way they can detect "what you had for lunch" is if you have crumbs leftover from it on your clothes or face.

Also for the purpose of target acquisition this device would have to be aimed- looking at a whole room of people means you get a signal from everyone and don't know who the positive hit is coming from.

My overall reaction is meh, it's honestly about the same (or possibly less) in terms of invasiveness when compared to terahertz imaging, backscatter x-ray imaging, etc. In reality it's no worse than those "air puffer" devices I saw a few years ago that attempt to dislodge rogue particles from your clothes using compressed air puffs and suck them through a spectrometer. Calling it a "laser scanner technology" is pretty inaccurate in my opinion...
 
Last edited:


Cool technology, I like it. Kind of reminds me of a quantum cascade laser's ability to detect chemicals.
 


In fact now that I think about it they don't really say what wavelength range this laser operates in, but they don't really specifically say the laser emits or detects terahertz... they just say the laser works in a broad wavelenth band and then Gizmodo also shows an excerpt of a paragraph talking broadly about potential terahertz spectroscopy.

One way or another, it isn't "Big Brother" come to get us.

Edit: Here's a link about it's THz application: http://www.geniaphotonics.com/business-markets/defense-and-security/terahertz-spectroscopy/
 
Last edited by a moderator:


This obviously falls right between hoof prints.
 


I will simply choose the identity I want for the day and wear that tag.

Embrace and exploit works far better than whining about oppression.
 


HowlerMonkey said:
Embrace and exploit works far better than whining about oppression.

Define "works far better."
 


Why they would want to know half the information they can obtain is beyond me.
 


It is inconceivable any such technology would not be highly classified if it worked as advertised.
 
  • #10


My dog could have told me all that stuff. Unfortunately we had to bury him on Wednesday. Yes, I am being serious, there is something missing in my life. And no, he wasn't 'highly classified' at all. Everyone who ever met him loved him.
-
But back on topic, dogs can tell a lot about people and no one thinks about it but when some machine supposedly can everyone gets excited.
 
Last edited:
  • #11


Averagesupernova said:
My dog could have told me all that stuff. Unfortunately we had to bury him on Wednesday. Yes, I am being serious, there is something missing in my life. And no, he wasn't 'highly classified' at all. Everyone who ever met him loved him.
I am so sad to hear that. :cry: R.I.P sweet dog.
 
  • #12


Mech_Engineer said:
Define "works far better."

It means that I will be mastering the technology while you are trying to bait someone on a forum.
 
Last edited:
  • #13


So your feeling is that you'd rather be oppressed and find a way to circumvent or exploit the technology, rather than prevent its use in the first place?

Your claim that "embrace and exploit works far better than whining about oppression" is hollow, and I was pointing it out by asking you to prove it's "better" on logical grounds. Your response was instead an ad-hominem attack on my motives, not exactly an effective resolution.
 
  • #14


Mech_Engineer said:
Define "works far better."

You asked for a definition.

There are many ways to fight oppression other than your views of what would be needed to fight said oppression.

Somehow you have assigned me a view that I prefer oppression but you are wrong.
 

Similar threads

Do Movies Teach Us Realistic Life Skills?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K